The Elements of Moral Scienceby Francis Wayland

World Affairs Institute

The Elements of Moral Science by Francis WaylandAmerican Advocate of Peace (1834-1836), Vol. 1, No. 5 (JUNE, 1835), pp. 239-248Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27886803 .

Accessed: 14/05/2014 15:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to American Advocate of Peace (1834-1836).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.177 on Wed, 14 May 2014 15:42:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wai

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27886803?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Article III.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

BY THE EDITOR.

The Elements of Moral Science. By Francis Wayland, D. D.9 President of Brown University, and Professor of Moral Philo sophy. New York, Cooke Co. pp. 448, 8vo.

A text book on Moral Philosophy may be regarded as a foun tain, sending forth either sweet waters or bitter. It is the source

whence those who exert a controlling influence over the religious^ and civil institutions of society, derive many of their principles. It is, or ought to be, a classification of the first principles of Reli

gion and Morality as derived both from Revelation and from Na ture. The business of the Moral Philosopher, as it seems to us,

is, to consider the rules gathered from the light of nature and those revealed in the Scriptures, together, to examino them with refer ence to the nature of Him who gave them, and of man who is to be

governed by them, and hence to deduce their application to human conduct. It is unnecessary to say that the examination of these

rules in this manner, and the deduction of their application to hu man conduct under different circumstances, is a work of the very first importance. A work from which the public teachers of reli gion, and the framers of the laws, and the interpreters of justice, derive their notions of the philosophy of morals-?who does not

perceive the immense influence it must exert upon all the inter course of men with each other, and upon all the institutions of so

ciety ? We by no means suppose that any work on Moral Philo

sophy will be adopted by all men, in all its parts, as the true sys tem of morals. There are men who think for themselves?who are slow to take any thing on trust, but they are a very small

number. Authority rules the mass of mankind, and a great many who suppose themselves very far removed from its influ ence. Eventhose who think for themselves, derive the ground work of their opinions, insensibly, from the first books put into their hands, or if not, these books give a coloring to their mode of thinking which endures throughout life.

The distinguished author of the work in question, seems to have considered the science of Moral Philosophy in the manner which we have indicated. He has regarded both the express will of God as announced in the Scriptures, and his will as more indi

rectly intimated by the nature of man whom he has created. It does not, however, fall within the scope of our design to give an

analysis of the work. Our object in this notice, is to introduce to



240 The Elements of Moral Science. [June,

the attention of our readers that part of the work which relates

directly to the objects of this journal?the Chapter entitled " Be nevolence toward the Injurious." That our readers who may not

happen to see the work itself, (which by the way, we would re commend to them to

see,) may be in possession of the entire argu ment, we shall give the entire chapter.. We will, however, first

premise that the doctrines contained in it on the subject of War are very different from those of Dr? Paley, whose work on Moral

Philosophy has been the text book, generally studied in our colle ges and higher schools. Says Paley,?

" War may be considered with a view to its causes and its con

duct. ^

The justifying causes of war are, deliberate invasions of right? and the necessity of maintaining such a balance of power among

neighboring nations, as that no single state, or confederacy of

states, be strong enough to overwhelm the rest. The objects of

just war, are precaution, defence, or reparation. In a larger

sense, every just war is a defensive war, inasmuch as every just war supposes an injury perpetrated, attempted, or feared.

The insufficient causes or unjustifiable motives of war, are the

family alliances, the personal friendships, or the personal quarrels of princes ; the internal disputes which are carried on in other na

tions ; the justice of other wars ; the extension of territory or of

trade ; the misfortunes or accidental weakness of a neighboring or rival nation."

This writer who maintains doctrines of such latitude as that the necessity of maintaining the balance of power, and the fear of injury, are just causes of war, let it be remembered, quotes in his preface, and with approbation, the following words of Dr.

Johnson. " When the obligations of morality are taught,, let the sanctions of Christianity never be forgotten : by which it

will be shown that they give strength and lustre to each other :.

religion will appear to be the voice of reason, and morality will be the will of God."

President Wayland comes to the conclusion that all war is

wrong. He proceeds on the ground that all war is a returning of evil for evil, which is expressly forbidden by the Gospel. He recognizes no analogy between it and judicial punishment. Now

it is asserted by some that war may be carried on without violating at all the law of benevolence, that the highest good (things being as they are) in some cases requires it. They think it possible to

carry on war without any more malice than the magistrate has

who inflicts judicial punishment, or than the surgeon has who am

putates a limb. Moral force alone, they say, is not sufficient for

th ? maintenance of civil society. Neither is it always su fficient for the highest good of nations. We trust the distinguished au thor will favor us with his views at length on this point. This matter should be set in a very full and clear light. Rut here foU lows the chapter :?



1835.] The Elements of Moral Science. 241

"BENEVOLENCE TOWARD THE INJURIOUS.

The cases to be considered here are three :

I. Where injury is committed by an individual upon an indi vidual.

II. Where injury is committed by an individual upon soci

ety.

III. Where injury is committed by a society upon a society.

I. Where an injury is committed by an individual upon an in dividual.

In this case the offender is guilty of wickedness, and of vio lation of our personal rights.

1. In so far as the action is wicked, it should excite our moral

detestation, just as in the case in which wrong is done to any one else.

2. In so far as the wicked man is unhappy, he should excite our pity, and our active effort to benefit him.

3. As the cause of this unhappiness is moral wrong, it is our

duty to reclaim him.

4. Inasmuch as the injury is done to us, it is our duty tojor give him. On this condition alone can we hope to be forgiven.

5. Yet more, inasmuch as the injury is done to us, it gives us

an opportunity of exercising special and peculiar virtue. It is

therefore our special duty, to overcome it by good, that is, the

duty of reclaiming him from wrong, rests specially upon us ; and

it is to be fulfilled by manifesting towards him particular kind

ness, and the most cheerful willingness to serve him. " Be not

overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" That is, it is our

special duty by an exhibition of peculiar benevolence to reclaim the injurious person to virtue.

Such is plainly the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. It will

require but a few words to show, that this is the course of con

duct indicated by the conditions of our being. 1. I think that every one must acknowledge this to be the

course pointed out by the most exalted virtue. Every man's con

science testifies, that to reward evil with good is noble, while the

opposite course is mean. There is nothing more strongly indi

cative of littleness of spirit, than revenge. 24*



242 The Elements of Moral Science. [June*

2. This mode of treating injuries has a manifest tendency to

put an end to injury, and every form of ill will.

For, 1. No man can long continue to injure another, who re

quites injury with nothing but goodness. 2. It improves the heart of the offender, and thus not only

puts an end to the injury at that particular time, but also greatly diminishes the probability of its recurrence at any subsequent

time. Were this course universally pursued, there would be

done on earth the least possible injury. 3. It affords an opportunity for the exercise of the most god

like virtue on the part of the offended. In a word, the tendency of this mode of treating an injurious

person is, to diminish indefinitely the liability to injury, and to

render all parties both happier and better. On the contrary, the tendency of retaliation is exactly the re

verse. We should consider,

1. That the offender is a creature of God, and we are bound

to treat him as God has commanded. Now no treatment which

we have received from another, gives us, by the law of God,

any right to treat him in any other manner than with kindness.

That he has violated his duty towards us and towards God, af

fords no reason why we should be guilty of the same crimes.

2. The tendency of retaliation is, to increase, and foster, and

multiply wrongs, absolutely without end. Such we see is its ef

fect among savage nations.

3. Retaliation renders neither party better, but always ren

ders both parties wrorse. The offended party who retaliates,

does a mean action, when he might have done a noble one.

Such then is the Scriptural mode of adjusting individual dif

ferences.

II. When the individual has committed an injury against so

ciety.

Such is the case when an offender has violated a law of soci

ety, and comes under its condemnation. In what way and on

what principles is society bound to treat him ? 1. The crime being one, which, if permitted, would greatly in

jure if not destroy society, it is necessary that it be prevented. Society has therefore a right to take such measures as will in

sure its prevention. This prevention may always be secured by

solitary confinement.




2. But this being done, society is under the same obligations to the offender, as the several individuals composing society, are under to him. Hence,

1. They are bound to seek his happiness by reclaiming him, that is, to direct all his treatment, while under their care, with distinct reference to his moral improvement. This is the law of

benevolence, and it is obligatory no less on societies than on indi

viduals. Every one must see, that the tendency of a system of

prison discipline of this kind must be, to diminish crime ; while that of any other system must be, and always has been, to in

crease it.

Nor is this chimerical. The whole history of prisons has tended to establish precisely this result. Prisons which have been conducted on the principle of retaliation, have every where

multiplied felons. While those which have been conducted on the principle of rendering a prison a school of moral reforma

tion, have thus far succeeded, beyond even the anticipations of

their friends. Such a prison is also the greatest terror to a wick

ed man ; and it ceases not to be so, until he becomes at least

comparatively virtuous. The whole experience of John How

ard is summed up by himself in a single sentence : " It is in vain to punish the wicked unless you seek to reclaim them."

By what I have said above, I would not be understood to deny the right of society to punish murder by death. This right I

think, however, is to be established, not by the principles of nat ural law, but by the command of God to Noah. The precept in this case seems to me to have been given to the whole human

race, and to be still obligatory.

III. Where one society violates the rights of another society. The principles of the Gospel already explained apply equally to this as to the preceding cases.

1. The individual has, by the law of God, no right to return evil for evil, but is bound to conduct towards every other ind?

vidual, of what nation soever, upon the principle of charily. 2. The individual has no right to authorize society to do any

thing contrary to the law of God. That is to say, men connected in societies are under the same moral law as individuals. What

is forbidden to the one, is forbidden also to the other. 3. Hence i think we must conclude, that an injury is to be

treated in the same manner, that is, that we are under obligation




to forgive the offending party, and to strive to render him both better and happier.

4. Hence" it would seem that all wars are contrary to the re

vealed will of God, and that the individual has no right to com mit to society, nor society to commit to government, the power to declare war.

Such, I must confess, seems to me to be the will of our Crea

tor, and hence that, to all arguments brought in favor of war, it

would be a sufficient answer, that God has forbidden it, and that no consequences can possibly be conceived to arise from keeping his law, so terrible as those which must arise from violating it.

God commands us to love every man, alien or citizen, Samaritan

or Jew, as ourselves ; and neither the act of society nor of gov ernment can render it our duty to violate this command.

But let us look at the arguments offered in support of war.

The miseries of war are acknowledged. Its expense at last

begins to be estimated. Its effects upon the physical, intellectu

al, and moral condition of a nation, are deplored. It is granted to be a most calamitous remedy for evil?, and the most awful

scourge that can be inflicted upon the human race. It will be

granted, then, that the resort to it, if not necessary, must be in

tensely wicked ; and that if it be not in the highest degree use

ful, it ought to be universally abolisned.

It is also granted, that the universal abolition of war would be

one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred upon the

human race. As to the general principle then, there is no dis

pute. The only question which arises is, whether it be not ne

cessary for one nation to act upon the principle of offence and

defence so long as other nations continue to do the same ?

I answer, first. It is granted that it would be better for man in general if wars were abolished, and all means both of offence

and defence abandoned. Now, this seems to me to admit, that

this is the law under which God has created man. But this be

ing admitted, the question seems to be at an end ; for God never

places men under circumstances in which it is either wise, or ne

cessary, or innocent, to violate his laws. Is it for the advantage of him who lives among a community of thieves to steal ; or for one who lives among a community of liars to lie ? On the con

trary, do not honesty and veracity, under these very circumstan




ces, give hirn additional and peculiar advantages over his com

panions ?

Secondly. Let us suppose a nation to abandon all means both

of offence and of defence, to lay aside ail power of inflicting in

jury, and to rely for self-preservation solely upon the justice of its own conduct, and the moral effect which such a course would

produce upon the consciences of men. How would such a na

tion procure redress of grievances ? and how would it be protected from f reign (ggression ?

1. Of redress of grievances. Under this head would be com

prehended violation of treaties, spoliation of property, and ill

treatment of its citizens.

I reply, 1. The very fact that a nation relied solely upon the

justice of its measures, and the benevolence of its conduct, would

do more than any thing else to prevent the occurrence of injury. The moral sentiment of every human community, would rise in

opposition to injury inflicted upon the just, the kind, and the mer ciful. Thus, by this course, the probabilities of aggression are

rendered as few as the nature of man will permit. 2. But suppose injury to be done. I reply, the proper appeal

for moral beings, upon moral questions, is not to physical force,

but to the consciences of men. Let the wrong be set forth, but

be set forth in the spirit of love ; and in this manner, if in any, will the consciences of men be aroused to justice.

3. But suppose this method to fail. Why, then, let us suffer the injury. This is the preferable evil of the two. Because they have injured us a little, it does not follow that we should injure ourselves much. But it will be said, what is then to become of

our national honor? I answer, first, if we have acted justly, we

surely are not dishonored. The dishonor rests upon those who

have done wickedly. I answer again, national honor is display ed in forbearance, in forgiveness, in requiting faithlessness with

fidelity, and grievances with kindness and good will. These vir

tues are surely as delightful and as honorable in nations as in

individuals.

But it may be asked, what is to prevent repeated and continu

ed aggression? 1 answer, first, not instruments of destruction, but the moral principle which God has placed in the bosom of every man. I think that obedience to the law of God, on the

part of the injured, is the surest preventive against the repetiu




tion of injury. I answer, secondly, suppose that acting in obe dience to the law of benevolence will not prevent the repetition of injury, will acting upon the principle of retaliation prevent it ? This is really the true question. The evil tempers of the human heart are allowed to exist, and we are inquiring in what

manner shall we suffer the least injury from them ; whether by obeying the law of benevolence or that of retaliation ? It is not

necessary, therefore, to show, that, by adopting the law of benev

olence, we shall not suffer at all ; but that, by adopting it, we shall surfer less than by the opposite course : and that a nation would

actually thus surfer less upon the whole than by any other course,

cannot, I think, be doubted by any one who will calmly reflect

upon the subject.

II. How would such a nation be protected from external at

tack and entire subjugation? I answer, By adopting the law of

benevolence, a nation would render such an event in the high est degree improbable. The causes of national war are, most

commonly, the love of plunder and the love of glory. The first of these is rarely, if ever, sufficient to stimulate men to the fe

rocity necessary to war, unless when assisted by the second.

And by adopting as the rule of our conduct the law of benevo lence, all motive arising from the second cause is taken away. There is not a nation in Europe that could be led on to war

against a harmless, just, forgiving, and defenceless people. But suppose such a case really should occur, what are we then

to do ? I answer, suffer injury with forgiveness and love, look

ing up to God, who, in his holy habitation, is the Judge of the whole earth. And if it be said, we shall then all be subjected and enslaved, I answer again, have wars prevented men from be

ing subjected and enslaved ? Is there a nation on the continent of Europe that has not been overrun by foreign troops several

times, even within the present century. And still more, is it not most commonly the case, that the very means by which we repel a despotism from abroad, only establishes over us a military des

potism at home ? Since, then, the principle of retaliation will not, with any certainty, save a country from conquest, the real

question, as before, is, by obedience to which law will a nation be most likely to escape it, by the law of retaliation or by that of benevolence? It seems to me, that a man who will calmly re

fleet, can have but little doubt on this matter.




But I go still farther. The Scriptures teach us that God has created men, both as individuals and as societies, under the law of benevolence ; and that he intends this law to be obeyed. Socie ties have never yet thought of obeying it in their dealings with each other; and statesmen would generally consider the allusion

to it as puerile. But this alters not the law of God, nor the pun ishment which he inflicts upon nations for the violation of it. This punishment I suppose to be war. I believe aggression from a foreign nation, to be the intimation from God that we are diso

beying the law of benevolence, and that this is his mode of teach

ing nations their duty, in this respect, to each other. So that ag gression seems to me, to be in no manner a call to retaliation

and injury, but rather a call to special kindness and good will. And still further, the requiting evil with good, tends just as strong ly to the cessation of all injury in nations as in individuals. Let

any man reflect upon the amount of pecuniary expenditure, and

the awful waste of human life, which the wars of the last hundred

years have occasioned, and then I will ask him whether it be not

self-evident, that the one-hundredth part of this expense and suf

fering, if employed in the honest effort to render mankind wiser and better, would long before this time, have banished wars

from the earth, and rendered the civilized world like the Garden of Eden.

If this be true, it will follow, that the cultivation of a military spirit, is the cultivation of a great curse to a

community ; and

that all means, both of offence and defence, are worse than use

less, inasmuch as they aggravate the very source of the evil, the corrupt passions of the human heart, by the manner in which

they ineffectually attempt to check the evil itself. I am aware that all this may be called visionary, romantic, and

chimerical. This, however, neither makes it so, nor shows it to

be so. The time to apply these epithets will be, when the just ness of their application has been proved. And if it be said, these principles may all be very true, but you can never induce nations to act upon them ; I answer this concession admits that

such is the law of God. If this be the case, that nation will be the happiest and wisest, which is the first to obey it. And if it be said, it would be wisest and best to obey the law of benevo lence, but men will never obey it ; I answer, here is manifestly the end of the argument. If we show men what is wisest and



248 Intelligence. [June,

best, and according to the will of their Creator, we can do no more. If they disobey it, this is a matter to be settled between them and their God. It remains, however, to be seen, whether

God will or will not cause his laws to be obeyed ; and whether omniscience and omnipotence have not the means of teaching his creatures submission to his will."

intelligence.

PEACE SOCIETIES.?Resolutions, &c.

England.?The Secretary of the British " Society for the Promotion of

Permanent and Universal Peace" has. since the publication of our last number, very kindly sent us the 52d and 53d numbers of the London "Herald of Peace" together with duplicates of the Society's numerous and very valuable Tracts. We return him and the Society many thanks for their favor. We find in these numbers of the Herald, a variety of Extracts from the

Reports of different Peace Societies. The sermon of the Rev. C. C. Van arsdalen, pronounced in the North Church at New Haven, Connecticut, during the session of the Legislature, by appointment of the Connecticut Peace Society, is republished in the Herald, entire. Our impression, in

looking at these numbers of the Herald, is, that the good cause is progress ing in Great Britain. We trust the time will shortly come, when Great Britain shall be no less distinguished for the glories of peace than she has been for the (false) glories of war. Freni lie Report of the Hibernian So

ciety, extracts from which are published in the Herald, it appears that there are in England, at the present time, about twenty-seven Peace Socie ties.

Connecticut Peace Society.?The fourth Anniversary of this Society, was held at the Baptist Church in this city, on the 10th of May last. The annual discourse before the Society, was delivered by the Rev. R. H.

Neale, Pastor of the Baptist Church, New Haven. It was listened to by a crowded audience, with very great interest. We understand it will soon be published. This Society has sent copies of the Advocate, which during the last year was puslished under its patronage, to all the members of the

United States Congress, to the Judges of the United States Courts, and to several officers of the different Departments of the United States Govern

ment.

Hibernian Society for the Promotion?of Permanent and Universal Peace.?At a meeting of this Society, holden on the 16th of Dec. 1834, the

following Resolutions were passed unanimously :? " Moved by Henry Grattan Curran ; seconded by Mr. Harvey? That the Report now read be adopted as the Report of the Meeting. Moved by Mr. Sherwood ; seconded by Mr. Grace? Resolved, That this Meeting adopts as a resolution, the opinion so ably

expressed by the celebrated Erasmus, viz.?" If there is in the affairs of mortal men any one thing which it is proper uniformly to explode, which it is incumbent on every man by every lawful means to avoid, to deprecate, to

oppose?that one thing is, doubtless, War. There is nothing more unnatu

rally wicked, more productive of misery, more extensively destructive*



Date post:	08-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongthuy
View:	214 times
Download:	2 times

The Elements of Moral Scienceby Francis Wayland

Documents